linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] unwind, perf: sframe user space unwinding, deferred perf callchains

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240916140856.GB4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:08:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Jordan Rome <jordalgo@...a.com>,
	Sam James <sam@...too.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] unwind, perf: sframe user space unwinding,
 deferred perf callchains

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 01:11:11PM +0200, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 08:12:46AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I think the unwinder should have an interface itself that provides the
> > deferred unwinding, instead of having all the tracers to implement
> > their own.
> > 
> > The user space unwinder (regardless of sframe or not) should provide a
> > way to say "I want a user space stack trace for here, but don't do it
> > yet. Just give me a cookie and then call my callback function with the
> > stack and cookie before going back to user space".
> 
> We (Steven, Mathieu and I) have been discussing this at GNU Cauldron and
> I think we're in basic agreement on this.
> 
> I think the biggest tweak we decided on is that the context id (aka
> "cookie") would be percpu.  Its initial value is (cpuid << 48).  It gets
> incremented for every entry from user space.

Why? What's the purpose of the cookie? This scheme seems unsound, pin
yourself on CPU0 and trigger 1<<48 unwinds while keeping CPU1 idle.

> > That is, we should have an interface like:
> > 
> > typedef void (unwinder_callback_t)(struct user_space_stack *, u64 cookie);

Just make it a void* and let the consumer figure it out.